Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
JoeMcFriday
New Member
As outlined in posts #1609 and #1611, I think a good case could be made for adding a multi-role corvette such as Austal's design to the RAN.
I refute the suggestion that proposing such vessels and their flexible capabilities, is based on the simplistic notion that only local defence is being considered in denial of global realities.
Quite the opposite really, if the the big boys are off fulfilling 'global' responsibilities what are we left with? The Armidales?
The MPCs could fulfill many roles [as per those listed posts] and much more, very economically and effectively. If required they also have the range and the speed to join the 'fleet' adding for example ASW, MCM, SAR, or transport capacity.
They have the capacity to replace more than one class of ship, with a little thought and fill a capability gap [in the present lineup] between the Armidales and the FFHs.
If these functions are considered a "waste of money", a more reasoned argument rather than a blunt statement would be appreciated so as to illuminate their shortcomings.
Clearly I do feel the multi-role capability a "must have" if we are to extend our presence, especially humanitarian, throughout our 'areas of interest', especially the Pacific, near north and north-west while retaining the capability to perform survey, MCM, SAR, ASW patrol or escort duties nearer home if ever required.
In a [desirable] two fleet scenario as StingrayOz proposes, they would be even more valuable, releasing larger units for fleet duties.
Cheers,
Mac
I refute the suggestion that proposing such vessels and their flexible capabilities, is based on the simplistic notion that only local defence is being considered in denial of global realities.
Quite the opposite really, if the the big boys are off fulfilling 'global' responsibilities what are we left with? The Armidales?
The MPCs could fulfill many roles [as per those listed posts] and much more, very economically and effectively. If required they also have the range and the speed to join the 'fleet' adding for example ASW, MCM, SAR, or transport capacity.
They have the capacity to replace more than one class of ship, with a little thought and fill a capability gap [in the present lineup] between the Armidales and the FFHs.
If these functions are considered a "waste of money", a more reasoned argument rather than a blunt statement would be appreciated so as to illuminate their shortcomings.
Clearly I do feel the multi-role capability a "must have" if we are to extend our presence, especially humanitarian, throughout our 'areas of interest', especially the Pacific, near north and north-west while retaining the capability to perform survey, MCM, SAR, ASW patrol or escort duties nearer home if ever required.
In a [desirable] two fleet scenario as StingrayOz proposes, they would be even more valuable, releasing larger units for fleet duties.
Cheers,
Mac
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IMV there is a problem with the Austal "corvette" MRV being used by the RAN. From all appearances the MRV is larger and of greater displacement than the Armidale ACPB. However, given the trimaran hull and aluminum construction (HSC?) I have to question just how well the vessel would function in a bluewater environment. The Armidale at ~60m and ~270 tons is supposed to function up to around Sea State 5 and operates primarily off the coast of northern Australia as opposed to in open oceans or ocean transit. The brochure for the Austal MRV lists a hull length ~18m greater with a deadweight tonnage of 320 tonnes and visually appears to have a significantly greater area/mass above the waterline. Also from the brochure, the only apparent armament for the vessel appears to be a 25mm Bushmaster on a Typhoon mounting, the same as the Armidales.
IMO the MRV would not suit Australia being too limited in the available area of operations since the design seems suited mostly to 'greenwater' operations. It would seem to have potential for service in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and similar areas where there is significant need for a multirole vessel that is also suited for shallow and littoral operations.
Perhaps some of the members which ship design and/or modification experience could comment (if they have not already in the past) on the overall seaworthiness of the design. Could it easily/safely transit from Australia to NZ in normal conditions, bad conditions, etc?
-Cheers
Really. you need to give some evidence. These are a light weight HSC hull which means they have limtied DWT. In addition they will burn a great deal of fuel if you want to operate them at speed. If you do not intend to use them at speed then there a large number of OPV options that will give you greater DWT and speed in the order of 21 to 25 knots that wil cost a great deal less to operate in respect of fuel burn and maintenance. HS engines are much more mainteance itensive that medium speed.
Range is govened by speed and the max range will be at crusing speed. Another problem with this design is they are more limited in the sea state in whcih they operate than most other fleet units being constructed to the HSC standard. Force 5 is their maximum operating limit (and then at greatly reduced speed). Commercial vessel built to this code are requreid to only operate on fixed routes and be 4 hours from a safe haven (for PAX) or 8 hours (for cargo).
If you are spending thsi sort of money you want to be to operate in all waters around the country but it would be a liability in southern waters and would be limtied during the cyclone season.
That 320 tonne DWT quoted in the glossy advert will include:
1. the aircraft, its fuel and spares and weapons
2. The crew (use about 130kg per person by the time you inlcude their baggage)
3. Ships fuel (to get the range quoted the tanks will have to be full), lube oils and chemicals
4. Ships stores (including food and water as well as spares)
5. Ammunition
After that you cna consider your mission package. Believe me the will not be much scope for heavy lifting even if you drop the helo. In short it can really only do one job at a time and needs to be reconfigures to each role...... just like the LCS.
These ships are not cheap and have signficant limitations when examined in the context of the waters in which they may have to operate. I don't think they make sense for the RAN.
A commercially built support (sealift) vessel will still give decent speed (over 21 knots) and have the DWT capacity to fulfil the amphibious support, medial evacuation, SAR, Helo training, humanitarian support roles with space to burn and at a lower cost for large lifts.
For the rest of the roles (I have to question command and control) I would rather see three ice strengthernd OPV's.
JoeMcFriday
New Member
Todjaeger and Alexsa,
Very interesting responses, however some are somewhat limited to the 'brochure size' of Austal's MPV, please note that I said in post #1611 "It is the inherent versatility in the design concept which attracts me although I think a slightly larger version, say 500 tons,...."
I am not suggesting a 360 DWT vessel but was suggesting the design concept be used in a size [LWL etc] more suitable to addressing many of the issues you both raised, say even up to 1000 dwt for discussion purposes.
I am aware that increasing speed uses more fuel but I believe that applies to across the board and isn't this hull form supposed to be more economical than traditional monohulls across most sea-states?
After all the Anzac's 6000nm range is only nominal and assumes a cruising speed of 10k. What max. sea-state can they operate helos etc in?
Compared with the Anzacs at app. 3600 DWT and a crew of app. 170, I thought that a ship of <1000 DWT, with a crew of 40-70 would be a lot more economical to operate, this is the only "evidence" on running costs I can offer at this point.
As far as the number of roles the design can accommodate, I confess I have only the MPV and LCS data to offer.
All the remarks re. sea states and cyclones etc are all valid but perhaps are coloured by the belief I was proposing the 360 ton Austal MRV per se.
Isn't it still Navy policy to avoid sailing into cyclones where possible or can the Armidales etc. do it?
If a tri-hull was ever considered, one would hope for sea-worthiness equal to, or greater than, conditions it could reasonably expect to encounter offshore. I expect Austal still have the skill to design for blue water capability.
I have made a few transits to NZ, nearer Pacific and Melanesian destinations in both mono-hulls and multi-hulls in a variety of weather conditions and I know which is the more stable and fastest hullform, they weren't warships though.
Alexsa, point taken on probable costs, I haven't heard of anything being bought for the the Navy that's not expensive but I am attempting to explore the gap between the Anzacs and the Armidales for a future RAN, so cannot offer a cost/value estimate for comparison to an existing platform. I can only suggest a lot less than an FFH and a lot more than an Armidale for a lot more flexibility in a single hull form.
Time out, 2yo needs a hose down, gotta go!:shudder
Cheers,
Mac
Very interesting responses, however some are somewhat limited to the 'brochure size' of Austal's MPV, please note that I said in post #1611 "It is the inherent versatility in the design concept which attracts me although I think a slightly larger version, say 500 tons,...."
I am not suggesting a 360 DWT vessel but was suggesting the design concept be used in a size [LWL etc] more suitable to addressing many of the issues you both raised, say even up to 1000 dwt for discussion purposes.
I am aware that increasing speed uses more fuel but I believe that applies to across the board and isn't this hull form supposed to be more economical than traditional monohulls across most sea-states?
After all the Anzac's 6000nm range is only nominal and assumes a cruising speed of 10k. What max. sea-state can they operate helos etc in?
Compared with the Anzacs at app. 3600 DWT and a crew of app. 170, I thought that a ship of <1000 DWT, with a crew of 40-70 would be a lot more economical to operate, this is the only "evidence" on running costs I can offer at this point.
As far as the number of roles the design can accommodate, I confess I have only the MPV and LCS data to offer.
All the remarks re. sea states and cyclones etc are all valid but perhaps are coloured by the belief I was proposing the 360 ton Austal MRV per se.
Isn't it still Navy policy to avoid sailing into cyclones where possible or can the Armidales etc. do it?
If a tri-hull was ever considered, one would hope for sea-worthiness equal to, or greater than, conditions it could reasonably expect to encounter offshore. I expect Austal still have the skill to design for blue water capability.
I have made a few transits to NZ, nearer Pacific and Melanesian destinations in both mono-hulls and multi-hulls in a variety of weather conditions and I know which is the more stable and fastest hullform, they weren't warships though.
Alexsa, point taken on probable costs, I haven't heard of anything being bought for the the Navy that's not expensive but I am attempting to explore the gap between the Anzacs and the Armidales for a future RAN, so cannot offer a cost/value estimate for comparison to an existing platform. I can only suggest a lot less than an FFH and a lot more than an Armidale for a lot more flexibility in a single hull form.
Time out, 2yo needs a hose down, gotta go!:shudder
Cheers,
Mac
The only reason why the US Navy is considering LCS is because they have a large fleet of destroyers, and see no purpose for ASW frigates, ocean escorts, anymore. Their minehunters don't have the range or seakeeping qualities to cross the oceans to a forward deployment. Neither do their patrol boats. The US Navy wants a minehunter/inshore patrol ship/ASW escort combination multi-role ship to replace its large number of frigates capable of getting to a forward deployment across the seas.
While the RAN isn't as tied down to a LCS concept, neither does it need such an asset. Australia also doesn't have an adequate number of destroyers either.
If Australia had a number of destroyers instead of frigates, I might agree with the construction of a few LCS type vessels. Unfortunately, Australia don't.
While the RAN isn't as tied down to a LCS concept, neither does it need such an asset. Australia also doesn't have an adequate number of destroyers either.
If Australia had a number of destroyers instead of frigates, I might agree with the construction of a few LCS type vessels. Unfortunately, Australia don't.
Not trying to be rude but so what if you go to 1000 DWT. The trimaran ferry has a DWT in that order but is still a HSC hence has a much lower up lift than a conventional vessel of similar size. These are a light displacement vessel for their size in order to get the speed performance. The stucture strength and carrying capcity (in weight) suffers as a result. It is because of the lightweight structure that HSC have operating limitations. I would suggest examining the High Speed Craft code would be instructive and the basis of its adoption would be instructive in this regard.
The vessel is designed for speed but can only do this up to a particualr sea state and that is not the maximum operating sea state of the vessel. In addition In higher sea states multi hulls suffer a number of vices not suffered by a conventional hull including tunnel slam. If you are unable to use the speed what is the point of building such an expensive vessels.
In addition if you are using it to transport materials or aid the limited carrying capacity in mass will mean more trips at more cost compared to a marginaly slower conventional support vessel (look at RO-RO vessels as an example) whihc can carry many times the load wihtout the same operating restrictions.
Actually 18kts. Same as the cruising speed of your MPV
ANZAC is a warship and should not be compared to a support vessel. Looking at LCS (which is bigger than ANZAC) this beast only has a DWT of about 200 tonnes while being fitted with minimal weapons.
If you want to compare support vessels please see my comment above about the need for repeat jouneys with significant increase in cost in order to replicate waht a 22knot RO-RO can do. A RO-RO vessel can have a crew as low as 12 but 18 is pretty common. Your MPV is a jack of many trades but master of none and is comparitively expensive to boot. If we need hihg speed troop transport we can charter it in.
The Armidales have limitations because of their size and light weight construction (yep these were built to the HSC code as well). Do we really need more of the same. The ACPB fulfills a need but cannot operate in all areas hence my comment that I would prefer to see three ice strengtherned helo capable OPV's and one helo capable sea lift support ship as opposed to more light craft'. If these were built to commercial specs I may actaully be cheaper too.
Multi hulls limitations on their draft range and deep loaded are more prone to tunnel slam and there are greater hydronamic, racking and tortional forces on the hull in high seas. Get a model catamaran and twist it. the fact is you have two hulls (or three) widely separtated and this results is considerabel stress on the bridging structure. On large vessel where hulls may be on diferent periods of the wave this forces anc be quite large. The issue here is these are lightweight craft. The Austal sea frame is a very impressive vessel and is quite ground breaking being much better in this regard than many other designs but this does not mean it is suitable for all roles.
And I have operated in the North atlantic in winter and would never take a multi hull into that.I have made a few transits to NZ, nearer Pacific and Melanesian destinations in both mono-hulls and multi-hulls in a variety of weather conditions and I know which is the more stable and fastest hullform, they weren't warships though.
Note my jack of all trades comment above. I repeat I would prefer to see three ice strengtherned helo capable OPV's and one helo capable sea lift support ship as opposed to more light craft'. If these were built to commercial specs I may actaully be cheaper too. They wouel certainly have smaller crews that the 70 odd you are proposing and would permit the use of more fuel efficient machinery. To give you an example Rolls Royce have an OPV design (helo capable) with a crew of 22-27, helo capable, 20000nm range and intended for 2 years of ongoing operations without deep maintenacne (based on a large offshore supprt vessel). Such vessels built overseas will set you back about 40 million USD..... suspect your will more (based on the ACPB cost) for your large light weight MPV per copy.Alexsa, point taken on probable costs, I haven't heard of anything being bought for the the Navy that's not expensive but I am attempting to explore the gap between the Anzacs and the Armidales for a future RAN, so cannot offer a cost/value estimate for comparison to an existing platform. I can only suggest a lot less than an FFH and a lot more than an Armidale for a lot more flexibility in a single hull form.
Time out, 2yo needs a hose down, gotta go!:shudder
Cheers,
Mac
JoeMcFriday
New Member
Thanks for the replies,
Sea Toby, one day perhaps the Anzac's replacements will be based on the AWD hulls and take on a more destroyer like guise, if not Aegis equipped. I can but hope.
Alexsa, thanks for taking the taking the time to be so thorough and enlightening in your reply.
Would you have a link to the RR vessel please? It sounds very interesting and you've made a good case why my original suggestion is not suitable.
As mentioned, I'm exploring the possibilities and seeking opinions, for a [relatively] inexpensive vessel to slot in between the Armidales and the FFHs, to fulfil duties beyond the scope of the patrol boats and at much less cost to run than the 'fleet' sized units.
With only 10 frigates and [even] 4 AWDs to support the LHDs, other [coalition etc] obligations and refits, I believe we have a need in this area given the size and diversity of our maritime zone. Even when not in a 'naval' war, like now.
In times gone by, this role was often filled by the 'corvette' which was usually under armed, slow, very uncomfortable but cheap, attractive to politicians and therefore numerous.
An economical blue water ship, capable of NH90 operations, ASW convoy escort, some decent offensive and defensive capability, with a degree of flexibility in its tasking is what I'm seeking. The ro/ro capability is not as vital as the other patrol functions, especially in the light of your explanations, I saw it as a bonus especially for small operations when looking at the Austal concept.
Do you have any other suggestions of what might, political climate aside, fill this niche?
Your point about ice strengthened hulls is well taken, as the Southern Ocean/Antarctica will become even more important to Australia in the coming decades. I agree we should have at least ships capable of patrolling there.
Do you see the vessels required for this being very specialised, ie very different from what I'm seeking or could they all be the same hull?
My nephew was on the Adelaide when they went charging off to rescue a sailor in the Southern Ocean, that operation alone informs me of the need for a very seaworthy design. It also alerted me to the fact that we have nothing smaller to consider for such costly though necessary missions.
I have also been on the North Sea in winter, the Irish Sea and about the Hebrides. Fortunately I was on Lewis when I saw my worst weather there and wouldn't have taken an aircraft carrier out in it!!:shudder
Thanks again for taking the time for such a comprehensive answer.
Cheers,
Mac
Sea Toby, one day perhaps the Anzac's replacements will be based on the AWD hulls and take on a more destroyer like guise, if not Aegis equipped. I can but hope.
Alexsa, thanks for taking the taking the time to be so thorough and enlightening in your reply.
Would you have a link to the RR vessel please? It sounds very interesting and you've made a good case why my original suggestion is not suitable.
As mentioned, I'm exploring the possibilities and seeking opinions, for a [relatively] inexpensive vessel to slot in between the Armidales and the FFHs, to fulfil duties beyond the scope of the patrol boats and at much less cost to run than the 'fleet' sized units.
With only 10 frigates and [even] 4 AWDs to support the LHDs, other [coalition etc] obligations and refits, I believe we have a need in this area given the size and diversity of our maritime zone. Even when not in a 'naval' war, like now.
In times gone by, this role was often filled by the 'corvette' which was usually under armed, slow, very uncomfortable but cheap, attractive to politicians and therefore numerous.
An economical blue water ship, capable of NH90 operations, ASW convoy escort, some decent offensive and defensive capability, with a degree of flexibility in its tasking is what I'm seeking. The ro/ro capability is not as vital as the other patrol functions, especially in the light of your explanations, I saw it as a bonus especially for small operations when looking at the Austal concept.
Do you have any other suggestions of what might, political climate aside, fill this niche?
Your point about ice strengthened hulls is well taken, as the Southern Ocean/Antarctica will become even more important to Australia in the coming decades. I agree we should have at least ships capable of patrolling there.
Do you see the vessels required for this being very specialised, ie very different from what I'm seeking or could they all be the same hull?
My nephew was on the Adelaide when they went charging off to rescue a sailor in the Southern Ocean, that operation alone informs me of the need for a very seaworthy design. It also alerted me to the fact that we have nothing smaller to consider for such costly though necessary missions.
I have also been on the North Sea in winter, the Irish Sea and about the Hebrides. Fortunately I was on Lewis when I saw my worst weather there and wouldn't have taken an aircraft carrier out in it!!:shudder
Thanks again for taking the time for such a comprehensive answer.
Cheers,
Mac
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
DMO Website lists the cutting of first steel to have occured last month (Sep 08'). It wasnt on the News or anything though, so i assume that time table is now out of date due to changes or delays.
Timetable:
The Link to the project page at the Defense Material Organisation can be found here
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it was 33 months from first steel cut to launch of Juan Carlos 1, 5 years from order to launch. Dokdo was quicker - 3 1/2 years from order to launch. But that's for a smaller & simpler ship.
I believe the Australians chosen build method imposes a delay. Quicker if they were completed in Spain.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Victorian Government here said that if a certain shipyard in their state was chosen they'd pay for all the upgrades needed before they could build the ship, obviously the Federal Government thought that would be too expensive though.
Ermm no.StevoJH said:
Navantia is on schleude atm.
The first two steel plates of the ALHD-1 were cut the past 23 of September at 11:00 by Navantia, in her Ferrol shipyard.
Complete Press Release - NavantiaNavantia said:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
My only comment was that i don't remember seeing it in the news here in Australia at all, you'd think that there would be at least some sort of mention.
Thanks for the info guys. Also wondering if the construction of the AWD's has began.
I was thinking about SteveJH's comment about the press.
I was thinking about SteveJH's comment about the press.
Do you think the Labour government is not making it a high media story because it would lead back to a Liberal government success story?
It was announced locally, either Canb Times or Australian IIRC.
They're actually ahead of schedule in some of the timelines.
t68
Well-Known Member
I picked up the latest copy of The NAVY it has an interesting story on sea 1000 Collins replacement.
To cut a long story short the article suggests we go with a conventionally powered VIRGINIA class submarine.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/990100-nssn.htm
It offers a low risk path and we could possibly piggy back further improvement in future upgrades with the USN
The RN also has a design that came out in May 2008 the vidar 36 submarine
A lot of the advance technologies are currently available
http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/warship/bmt-defence/press8.html
A lot of the article is over my head in terms in propulsion output, but I have a general idea on what it is trying to say, the article was written by Abraham Gubler it appears well written and for some people who might have more of an understanding in the complexities in design and engineering than me
To cut a long story short the article suggests we go with a conventionally powered VIRGINIA class submarine.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/990100-nssn.htm
It offers a low risk path and we could possibly piggy back further improvement in future upgrades with the USN
The RN also has a design that came out in May 2008 the vidar 36 submarine
A lot of the advance technologies are currently available
http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/warship/bmt-defence/press8.html
A lot of the article is over my head in terms in propulsion output, but I have a general idea on what it is trying to say, the article was written by Abraham Gubler it appears well written and for some people who might have more of an understanding in the complexities in design and engineering than me
t68
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression he was suggesting the same size displacement not reduced as tech improves with propulsion systems it might be more viable to go with a proven design
- Status